Paul and the Skeptics

Ordinary Time X; June 10, 2007

Galatians 1:11-24

Today we’re going to talk about St. Paul – no, not the capital of Minnesota, but the man the city is named after. Since he wrote a large percentage of the New Testament, you should know about him.

Everything Paul did, he did with enthusiasm; he threw himself into it with all his energy. As a devout member of Pharisaic Judaism, he gave himself heart and soul to the protection of the ways of God as he had learned them. Therefore, he persecuted Christians with zest. He headed to Damascus, with letters of authority from the Council in Jerusalem so that he could arrest any Jew found to be following the Way of Jesus.

I hope you know the story of what happened to him on the road. He saw a blinding light – literally blinding; he was left unable to see after this experience – and heard the voice of Jesus, “Why do you persecute me?” He was converted on that road and became a follower of Jesus. When he got to Damascus, instead of arresting Jews who were following the Way of Jesus, he was baptized and became himself a follower of that Way.

The text I read you describes what happened next, but the main point to make today is why Paul needed to tell that story. He mentions his vision, describes his years in Arabia, and then tells about his limited visit to Jerusalem.  But why tell all this? And why is it in the Bible? We don’t read verses like this on Sunday morning just so you can go home with a travelogue or a piece of biography; what’s the deal?

Paul emphatically makes the point that he received the Gospel directly in a vision. Now, if I claimed to receive teachings direct from God in a vision, you would have one of two reactions. You would either nod politely, while backing slowly away, keeping a tight grip on your wallet and the hands of your children, or you would bundle me into your car and take me to the nearest mental health center for evaluation. As they say, if you talk to God, it’s prayer, but if God talks to you, it’s schizophrenia. And Paul claims that he did not receive just a few messages, but that he received the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ in a revelation from God.

Furthermore, he makes the point that he did not go to Jerusalem to meet with any of those appointed as Apostles until after he had spent time in Arabia and returned to Damascus to get on with the work of the Gospel. It was three years later that he finally went to Jerusalem and then he did not meet with all of the Apostles, but only with Peter (whom he calls “Cephas” in this letter) and with James the Lord’s brother – who was himself not one of the Twelve, but was the Bishop of the Church in Jerusalem. In fact, if he were to show up in any of the churches in Judea after that, he writes, they would not even recognize his face. He visited only the two he named, stayed only fifteen days, and then went off to preach in Syria and southern Turkey (as we know Cilicia now).

So, what’s the point? Why the travelogue and the story about revelation? Simply this: it was already an established principle in the Church that to be considered an Apostle, you had to have been part of the followers of Jesus from the first (Acts 1:21-22). Those who had received the Gospel secondhand, from somebody else, rather than directly from Jesus need not apply. So although Paul could not claim to have gone about with Jesus from the time of the Lord’s Baptism through to his Resurrection, he could claim that he had received the Gospel directly from God, not through another teacher.

Therefore, he could legitimately claim to be an Apostle. That mattered a great deal to the people he was writing to and it matters a great deal to you and me, as well. Here is more of the story.

Paul was a Pharisee, part of the group of Jewish believers who were strictest in their practice. They were extremely careful about what they ate, about the keeping of the Sabbath, about their attention to the Law that Moses gave from Mt. Sinai. Paul studied it, Paul knew it, and Paul was very faithful to it. But he had had a revelation from God: salvation did not lie in keeping the rules; salvation was the gift of God in Jesus Christ. Anybody willing to open their hands and receive the gift, to follow on the Way of Christ, was made a friend of God, whether they kept the strict rules of the Law of Moses or not.

I do not know if you or I can appreciate how this revelation must have hit Paul. The Law of Moses was the organizing center of his life; it was how he knew who he was. God shows him that, helpful as the Law is, it is not essential to salvation. Keeping the rules does not make you part of Christ’s new Kingdom. This was wonderful good news to all the non-Jewish people Paul was preaching to, people who wanted to follow the Way of Jesus and knew they had to give up their pagan ways but were glad that they did not have to adopt Jewish ways. In particular, you men can imagine how glad the men were to learn that they did not have to become circumcised.

But other Christians disagreed with Paul; they said that they were all Jews, Jesus was a Jew, and Jesus said that he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). They told the non-Jewish Christians – such as the ones in Galatia, to whom this letter is addressed – that they had to keep the same law the Jews keep. That is, to become Christians, they had to become Jews. If they did not, they were not really saved. Specifically, fellows – they said – you have to be circumcised.

So you see the conflict. And you thought Church fights were a modern phenomenon. The people on the other side said, “You have to be circumcised;” Paul said, “No, you don’t.” How are the people to decide? For thinking people, there need to be criteria beyond simply “What I like” or “What I already believe.” Paul’s opponents not only attacked Paul’s teaching, but they attacked Paul himself: He’s not really an Apostle, you know. You can’t trust anything he teaches, because he calls himself an Apostle, but he isn’t one. And in case you thought Paul was a nicer guy, he says some pretty ugly things about his opponents.

But the point of all that Paul writes here is to claim that legitimately he is an Apostle and that the people of Galatia can indeed trust what Paul teaches. They can trust it because:

            His teaching is from God, given directly by revelation;

            He is legitimately an Apostle, someone who has the authority and the understanding to teach about God;

            His own life has been changed by what he experienced;

            His teaching was welcomed by other Christians.

I see two reasons for this to matter to us, brothers and sisters. The first is the same as the one for the Galatians: we can trust the Gospel as preached by St. Paul. A lot of the New Testament is either written by or attributed to Paul; we can trust it. Sure, it needs to be interpreted in context – the context of the time, the context of the particular situation, and the context of Paul’s own experiences and prejudices, not to mention the context of our time, our situation, our experiences and our prejudices – but, generally speaking, it can be trusted. Paul’s central point in Galatians is that everyone who follows the Way of Christ belongs to Christ, whether they are circumcised or not, whether they eat kosher or not, whether they keep a strict Sabbath or not. Those who trust Christ are saved in Christ, whether they are rule-keepers or not.

The skeptics doubted that Paul knew what he was talking about, and worried that any who listened to him were jeopardizing their salvation. Paul replied with his experience and his credentials.

The second thought is that Paul’s argument gives you and me some guidelines on whom to trust when it comes to spiritual matters. There are so many authors, teachers and preachers and what we say is often conflicting. It may be tempting to tune out all of us, or listen only to ones who say what you already think and what you already want to do. If you think everyone ought to obey the rules, then listen to Paul’s opponents; if you think the Way of Christ is a way of freedom, then listen to Paul.

Well, Paul is in the New Testament and his opponents are not, so from his writing in this text I take three guidelines for us to use in evaluating whom to listen to. One: is what the teacher says merely book-learning or is there experience to match? As I said, I would not trust a preacher who claims not to have learned from another person but to have received the Gospel by revelation; there has been only one St. Paul. But at the same time I could hardly trust a preacher who is only a theological functionary with no experience of God to accompany the teaching. One of the times the Presbyterian Church split in the past was largely over this question: the importance of learning and the importance of experience. Our eventual reunion – we Presbyterians split, but we get back together – came with the realization that we need both. We need learning and experience; we need teachers, preachers and leaders who not only read about and learn about God, but have a relationship with God.

Two: what the spiritual leader teaches ought to be reflected in his or her own life. This is where so many of the TV evangelists fall: they talk about the Gospel’s priorities, but their own priorities include maintaining mansions and private jets, paid for by the contributions of widows on a fixed income. Could you trust a preacher who talks about the forgiving love of God, but who does not practice forgiveness? Could you trust an elder who promotes faithfulness but who is faithless? Paul’s life was changed by his experience on the road to Damascus and his time in Arabia; he went from persecuting the Church to becoming its strongest promoter. Few Christian leaders will have anything so dramatic to tell, but, like Paul, our lives ought to reflect the Gospel we promote.

And, third: does the spiritual leader have independent confirmation? The Christians of Judea did not know Paul by sight, but they “glorified God” (v. 24) because of him and his work. Later in the letter Paul tells how the church authorities in Jerusalem also confirmed his work. In the Presbyterian Church, you do not have authority to teach unless a responsible governing body says you do. Perhaps that seems a little restrictive to you, but it is intended to protect people. You know that all kinds of flaky things get said in the name of Christianity. Buffy the Vampire Slayer says something along the lines of, “Note to self: Religion – freaky.” Independent confirmation of a person’s right to preach and teach – quite apart from being rich or charismatic enough to get your own television show or start your own church – is to protect the people of God.

I hope all this helps you in your spiritual journey. You can trust the Gospel as taught by St. Paul. And remember three guidelines for choosing whom to trust in spiritual teaching, beyond simply whether they say what you want to hear: that the teacher has both learning and experience, that the teacher’s life reflects what he or she teaches, and that the teacher has independent confirmation of her or his right to teach. May God bless his Church.

Sovereign God, thank you for the witness of the Apostle Paul, and for the legacy he left in his writings. Give us faith to discern wisely whom to trust, what to believe, and how to follow Christ. Amen.

Robert A. Keefer

Westminster Presbyterian Church

Clarinda, Iowa